full-disclosure - Re: defining 0day

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0709251459100.25733@linuxbox.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:59:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: Gadi Evron <ge@...uxbox.org>
To: Brian Loe <knobdy@...il.com>
Cc: Chad Perrin <perrin@...theon.com>,
	Lamont Granquist <lamont@...iptkiddie.org>,
	"pdp \(architect\)" <pdp.gnucitizen@...glemail.com>, Casper.Dik@....com,
	Roland Kuhn <rkuhn@....physik.tu-muenchen.de>,
	"Thor \(Hammer of God\)" <thor@...merofgod.com>,
	full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk, bugtraq@...urityfocus.com,
	Crispin Cowan <crispin@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: defining 0day

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Brian Loe wrote:
> On 9/25/07, Gadi Evron <ge@...uxbox.org> wrote:
>
>> Okay. I think we exhausted the different views, and maybe we are now able
>> to come to a conlusion on what we WANT 0day to mean.
>>
>> What do you, as professional, believe 0day should mean, regardless of
>> previous definitions?
>
>
> Seems to me that definitions, and language itself, is a product of
> evolution. You can't just remove all previous meanings. Its better
> anyway to stick to the most accepted, acknowledged and DOCUMENTED
> definitions:

No longer good enough.

We can get a press scare over a public vuln release, or a wake-up call.

I think we can do better as an industry.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/